Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP)

Posted April 9th, 2009 by Joanne Rubin
In Reference to:
Think You Understand Development? Think Again.

Hi, folks,

I'm a psychologist who thinks psychodynamically, transpersonally, and Integrally.  I don't think that development in all the lines happens only according to hierarchical complexity.  It's a very important part, and as such, I think that hierarchical complexity, and skill set theory (Fischer), are great contributions.  But I think there needs to be info on this site that comes from phenomenological methods, accruals of clinical case studies, and 360 degree observations of exemplars (meaning observing their behavior and also learning about their subjective experience, giving psychological tests, etc.). Each of these methods has their ways of being systematic and judging what's valid or not.  We need all relevant IMP methods applied to each line of development. 

For example, the number of perspectives we're able to take might be a measure of breadth but not depth.  Ken's definition of relative maturity is "the greatest depth for the greatest span" possible at any time in a culture's development.  In my opinion, Ken first saw Integral objects (from some blend of all states and stages).  It's almost like living in a 3-D world and spotting the first 4-D object, which includes and transcends the 3D world.  We 3D'ers get a coupla hits from him or each other, and we want more.  Now we're left playing a kind of "warmer-colder" game, recognizing this harmonic, or field, or whatevertheheck. Make those Kosmic grooves.  So how are we supposed to be able to test that...

I think that RH quadrant, logicodeductive or scientific methods are the most specific, and I think that the LAS is the best for the cognitive line, and about half of the worldview, values, and moral line. But I only wish for that kind of clarity for emotional development, intuition, and subtler consciousness apprehensions. 

But we don't have to wait for all this to develop, to explore new worlds when we've reasonably assimilated normative adulthood and are in existential quadaries.  We simply work on deepening (in the common sense of the word), and broadening our cognitive perspective and emotional empathy.  Maslow is a simpler read than Wilber.

I'm drowning in listservs and don't know if I'll find this page again, but I hope people keep talking it up, and we'll see what repeats in the LL mix.

Warmly,

Joanne

Joanne@iPsychNY.com


 

 


Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

[Comment Deleted]

Posted April 10th, 2009 by admin
This comment has been deleted by the author.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Scientific Method

Posted May 2nd, 2009 by Richard Layman

Joanne wrote:

But I think there needs to be info on this site that comes from phenomenological methods, accruals of clinical case studies, and 360 degree observations of exemplars (meaning observing their behavior and also learning about their subjective experience, giving psychological tests, etc.). Each of these methods has their ways of being systematic and judging what's valid or not.  We need all relevant IMP methods applied to each line of development.

I strongly agree, though Schalk Schalk seems to have ignored this point in favor of quibbling over nuances of jargon.

This thread may be a bit stale - I found it by searching for "scientific method". I'm new and maybe I'm missing something, but so far that does not appear to be a popular topic here. What gives with that?

Richard

--

There is no answer. There is no solution. There is only practice. (Anon.)